Re: So much for capacity worries in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19474213 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:36:59 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:36:59 EDT Re: So much for capacity worries http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19478259 Network Guy : I've toyed with one or two, not in a production environment. Interface is just hideous.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19478259 Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:31:33 EDT Re: So much for capacity worries http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19474835 Done_Posting :
said by Network Guy See Profile :

Could be worst.. You could have Foundry gear.
Haha, we actually do use Foundry's to provide WAN peering connections for our non-PtP ethernet and non-PtP DS1 / DS3 customers, as well as our sister cableco's cable modem platform. I take it your experience with Foundry equipment has been less than stellar?

- Tate

--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19474835 Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:29:20 EDT Re: So much for capacity worries http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19474608 Network Guy : As long as Cisco isn't leading nor isn't the only one rolling out next-gen equipment rollout, you can bet on continued lower costs.

Could be worst.. You could have Foundry gear.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19474608 Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:52:02 EDT Re: So much for capacity worries http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19474213 Done_Posting : We replaced our Mahi backhaul gear ($700,000+ each) with several Turin chassis ($400,000 each) recently. The Turin stuff is capable of OC-384, whereas I believe the Mahi maxed at OC-192. I want to say the OC-48 cards we populate the Turin are like $15K a pop, but I may be off. In any event, this is a good example of backbone equipment costs coming down. The Turin is beefier yet almost half the cost of the old stuff! Who knows -- by the time 2010 rolls around we'll probably see OC-768 gear in the $200K range!

- Tate

--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19474213 Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:39:05 EDT Re: So much for capacity worries http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19474078 rebus9 :
said by Network Guy See Profile :

Question is.. Can they transport sustained 100Gbps on the backhaul?
Yeah, backbone links are typically less problematic capacity-wise than regional transport. Am I worried? Not really.

10 years ago the average household had 56k dialup. Today 20/20 is commodity. That's a ~350-fold increase. So where will we be in 10 more years? :)

I think the bottleneck to deployment of these magical 100G/sec (or even terabit/sec) circuits will be equipment costs.

Anyone whose purchased line cards to terminate OC-x circuits will appreciate the magnitude of the investment required to accomplish this, not to mention the switch/router chassis to house those cards. Each switch/router is a 7-figure investment, and there are thousands of these devices that will need to be upgraded accordingly.
 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19474078 Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:16:13 EDT So much for capacity worries http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19474047 Network Guy : This sends a nice big STFU to claims by AT&T about "network capacity apocalypse by 2010."

That's pretty impressive. Question is.. Can they transport sustained 100Gbps on the backhaul? Not gonna be a pretty sight if they don't test that before-hand.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19474047 Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:09:33 EDT